Not agreeing with the concept of a hereditary monarchy in acountry where its celebrated is an odd place to be. Strangerstill is spending your time defending particular members of theroyal family after coverage of them turns hostile. But this iswhere Ive found myself this past week.

Part of my job as an academic is to examine how racism functionsin the UK. Ever since Meghan Markle, Duchess of Sussex, andPrince Harry announced they were stepping back from theirroles as senior royals, theres been a debate in British mediaabout whether the coverage of Markle has been racist. A debatethat has  in a sad but predictable turn of irony  reproducedracism while denying it is prevalent.

The royal family is historically a white institution. And sowhen Markle, a biracial woman, became a member, some heralded itas progress. But in late 2016, the same year it was announcedshe and Prince Harry were dating, the prince put out a statementcondemning the wave of abuse and harassment Markle had alreadybeen subjected to. That included the racial undertones ofcomment pieces and the outright sexism and racism of socialmedia trolls and web article comments. Three years later,Markle talked about the difficulty of dealing with tabloidcoverage more broadly, saying it had been hard, and thatadopting this British sensibility of a stiff upper lip wasdifficult.

Post by Mulatto Gold DiggerEver since Meghan Markle, Duchess of Sussex, andPrince Harry announced they were stepping back from their"roles" as senior royals, there's been a debate in British mediaabout whether the coverage of Markle has been racist. A debatethat has "in a sad but predictable turn of irony", reproducedracism while denying it is prevalent.